I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON

Transcription

1 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTI ON FILED July 28, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk SHI RLEY I NEZ HALE REAGAN ) BLOUNT COUNTY ) 03A GS Plaintiff-Appellant ) ) ) v. ) HON. J AMES R. BREWER, J R., ) J UDGE ) J ACKSON RI CHARD REAGAN ) ) Def endant - Appel l ee ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED R. D. HASH OF MARYVI LLE FOR APPELLANT MI KE A. HI CKMAN OF MARYVI LLE FOR APPELLEE O P I N I O N Goddar d, P. J. Thi s i s a post - di vor ce pr oceedi ng wher ei n Shi r l ey I nez Reagan appeal s a j udgment of t he Gener al Sessi ons Cour t f or Bl ount Count y whi ch di vest ed her of her one- hal f i nt er est i n mar i t al pr oper t y and r equi r ed her f or mer husband, Jackson Ri char d Reagan, t o pay her t he sum of $28, 500.

2 The Tr i al Cour t, at t he concl usi on of counsel s' openi ng st at ement, asked i f t hey wi shed t o i nt r oduce any pr oof. Counsel r esponded i n t he negat i ve af t er i t was st i pul at ed t hat t he money or der ed t o be pai d was never pr esent ed t o Ms. Reagan. Ther eupon, t he Tr i al Judge announced hi s det er mi nat i on whi ch was memor i al i zed i n an or der whi ch pr ovi ded t he f ol l owi ng: 2. a. The Cour t f i nds t he si xt y ( 60) days begi nni ng Sept ember 6, 1995, t o be t he r el evant per i od of t i me f or t he Def endant t o have made t he t ender of payment t o t he Def endant. b. The Cour t f i nds t hat Def endant made t ender dur i ng t he r el evant per i od of t i me. 3. Accordingly, the original Plaintiff's Motion f i l ed Mar ch 8, 1996, i s not wel l t aken and i s her eby dismissed. 4. The Def endant ' s Mot i on t o Compel Cl osi ng i s wel l t aken and i s her eby gr ant ed. The or i gi nal Plaintiff, Shirley Inez Hale Reagan, is, therefore, di vest ed of any r i ght, t i t l e, or i nt er est she may have i n t he r eal pr oper t y mor e par t i cul ar l y descr i bed i n t he Fi nal Decree of Di vorce and i n t he Warrant y Deed Book 553, page 807, i n t he Regi st er of Deeds' Of f i ce f or Bl ount Count y, Tennessee, and i s vest ed i n t he or i gi nal Def endant, Jackson Ri char d Reagan, si ngl e. 5. The original Plaintiff, Shirley Inez Hale Reagan, i s awarded a l i en agai nst sai d real propert y t o secur e payment of t he sum of Twent y- Ei ght Thousand Fi ve Hundr ed Dol l ar s ( $ ) wi t h sai d l i en onl y t o be r el eased upon payment i n f ul l by t he Def endant, Jackson Richard Reagan, to the Plaintiff, Shirley Inez Hale Reagan, of sai d sum of Twent y- Ei ght Thousand Fi ve Hundr ed Dol l ar s ( $28, ) as pr evi ousl y or der ed by t he Cour t. 6. The original Plaintiff, Shirley Inez Hale Reagan, i s her eby or der ed t o at t end any cl osi ng at t he t i me and pl ace set by Def endant f or t he pur pose of Def endant secur i ng a l oan i n t he amount of Twent y- Ei ght Thousand Fi ve Hundr ed Dol l ar s ( $28, ) t o pay t he Plaintiff for her interest in the real property. The original Plaintiff shall attend said closing, unless pr i or t her et o she execut es and del i ver s an appr opr i at e 2

3 Qui t - Cl ai m Deed t o Def endant, when pr esent ed t o her, conveyi ng any r i ght, t i t l e and i nt er est she may have i n t he pr oper t y t o Def endant. Ms. Reagan' s appeal i nsi st s no evi dence was i nt r oduced t o j ust i f y t he Tr i al Cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act upon whi ch hi s or der was pr edi cat ed, and t hat no t ender of t he $28, 500 was ever made i n accordance wi t h t he di vorce decree ent ered whi ch, as per t i nent t o t hi s appeal, pr ovi ded t he f ol l owi ng: 2. The or i gi nal def endant, Jackson Ri char d Reagan, shal l have t he mari t al propert y descri bed i n War r ant y Deed Book 553, page 807 i n t he Regi st er ' s of Deeds of f i ce f or Bl ount Count y, Tennessee and l ocat ed i n di st r i ct ( 11) el even of Bl ount Count y, Tennessee and cont ai ni ng t hr ee ( 3) acr es mor e or l ess upon hi s payment to the original plaintiff, Shirley Inez Hale Reagan, of t he sum of $28, ( Twent y- ei ght t housand and f i ve hundr ed dol l ar s). The or i gi nal def endant has si xt y days f r om t he dat e of t he ent r y of t hi s or der t o tender said sum to the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff will cooperate in tendering a quitcl ai m deed t o t he defendant t o faci l i t at e t ransfer. In t he event t he or i gi nal def endant cannot pur chase t he pl ai nt i f f ' s shar e f or $28, ( Twent y- ei ght t housand and f i ve hundr ed dol l ar s), t he pl ai nt i f f shal l t hen have a si xt y day per i od t o pur chase t he def endant ' s i nt er est f or sai d sum of $28, ( Twent y- ei ght t housand and f i ve hundr ed dol l ar s). Upon t ender of sai d amount t o t he def endant wi t hi n t he pr oper per i od of t i me by t he pl ai nt i f f, t he def endant shal l execut e and del i ver a qui t - cl ai m deed t o t he pl ai nt i f f of hi s i nt er est i n sai d pr oper t y. The or i gi nal def endant wi l l cooper at e i n t ender i ng a qui t - cl ai m deed t o t he plaintiff to facilitate transfer. In the event neither par t y has t he wher ewi t hal t o buy t he ot her par t y out, the property shall be listed for sale at a mutually agreeabl e pri ce wi t h a real t or agreeabl e bet ween t he par t i es. Upon t he sal e of t he same and payment of al l out st andi ng i ndebt ednesses agai nst t he same, t he par t i es shal l di vi de any equi t y r eal i zed f r om sai d sal e. Upon such t i me as ei t her part y successful l y t ender s t o t he ot her t he r equi r ed amount f or a buy out, t he par t y so bought out shal l be r equi r ed t o vacat e hi msel f or her sel f f r om t he r esi dence wi t hi n one week of t he r ecei pt of t he r equi r ed amount of buy out. Each 3

4 par t y i s r est r ai ned f r om dest r oyi ng or vandal i zi ng any r eal or per sonal pr oper t y awar ded t o t he ot her par t y herei n. No f or mal pr oof was i nt r oduced, 1 but, i n t he wor ds of lawyers of an earlier time, counsel "spoke it out." We will now det ai l per t i nent comment s of counsel whi ch f or t he most par t was undi sput ed. The 60- day per i od f or Mr. Reagan t o t ender t he $28, 500 began on Sept ember 6, 1995, t he day Ms. Reagan vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed her appeal i n t he or i gi nal di vor ce act i on. I t was necessar y f or Mr. Reagan t o bor r ow t he $28, 500 f r om a l endi ng i nst i t ut i on t o pay Ms. Reagan and t o pl edge t he pr oper t y as col l at eral. By t wo separat e l et t ers sent t o counsel for Ms. Reagan dur i ng t he 60- day per i od, counsel f or Mr. Reagan advi sed t hat hi s cl i ent was r eady, wi l l i ng and abl e t o pay her t he sum owed upon her del i ver i ng a qui t - cl ai m deed f or her i nt er est i n t he pr oper t y t o Mr. Reagan. The f i r st l et t er was dat ed Oct ober 9, 1995, and t he second Oct ober 13. I n addi t i on, counsel f or Mr. Reagan had sever al t el ephone conver sat i ons wi t h counsel f or Ms. Reagan t o t he same effect. 1 Af t er t he Tr i al Cour t announced i t s deci si on couns el f or Ms. Reagan as ked t o ent er an of f er of pr oof by hi s cl i ent whi ch t he Tr i al Judge al l owed. Hi s or der, however, speci f i cal l y not es t hat t he evi dence el i ci t ed i n t he of f er of pr oof was not cons i der ed i n hi s det er mi nat i on. 4

5 the Trial Court. I t appear s t hat t he f or egoi ng was consi der ed pr oof by The Tr i al Cour t f ound and t he par t i es agr ee t hat t he 60- day per i od f or Mr. Reagan t o t ender t he $28, 500 began on Sept ember 6, 1995, t he day Ms. Reagan vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed her appeal i n t he or i gi nal di vor ce act i on. I t al so appear s t hat i t was necessar y f or Mr. Reagan t o bor r ow t he $28, 500 f r om a l endi ng i nst i t ut i on t o pay Ms. Reagan and t o pl edge t he pr oper t y as col l at er al. I n f ur t her ance of hi s ef f or t t o r ai se f unds, Mr. Reagan repeat edl y request ed Ms. Reagan t o execut e a qui t -cl ai m deed and t o at t end a cl osi ng t hat t he deed mi ght be del i ver ed, a t r ust deed execut ed, and t he money pai d t o her. Ms. Reagan st eadf ast l y r ef used t o do so, t hwar t i ng Mr. Reagan' s abi l i t y t o compl y wi t h t he Tr i al Cour t ' s or der. Whi l e i t i s t rue Mr. Reagan never offered Ms. Reagan t he $28, 500 and no t ender i n t he t r adi t i onal sense 2 was ever made, he was pr event ed f r om doi ng so because of Ms. Reagan' s i nt ransi gence. Under t he ci rcumst ances of t hi s case we bel i eve t he r ul e expr essed by t he West er n Sect i on of t hi s Cour t i n 2600 Popl ar Associ at es Li mi t ed Par t ner shi p v. Gol dome Cr edi t 2 In Davi dson v. Rogers, 471 P. 2d 455, 458 ( Okl. 1970), t he Supr eme Court of Okl ahoma, quot i ng from Am. Jur. 2d, defi nes common l aw t ender as follows: At common l aw, a t ender of money i s an uncondi t i onal offer by a debt or or obl i gor t o pay anot her, i n cur r ent coi n of t he real m, a sum not l ess t han t he amount t hen due on a speci f i ed debt or obl i gat i on. 52 Am. Jur. 2d Tender, Sect i ons 1 and 2. (Emphasi s in original.) 5

6 Cor por at i on, an unpubl i shed opi ni on of t hi s Cour t, f i l ed i n Jackson Apr i l 7, 1994, comes i nt o pl ay: I t i s suf f i ci ent i f t he par t y seeki ng t o enf or ce t he cont r act pr esent s pr oof t hat he i s r eady, wi l l i ng, and abl e i n good f ai t h t o per f or m what he i s r equi r ed t o do under t he cont r act. 71 AM. JUR. 2d, Speci f i c Performance 68, at 97-98; 81 C. J. S. Speci f i c Performance 112, at 965. Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y t r ue i n di sput es r esol vi ng unset t l ed account s. Tender i n an act i on for speci fi c performance means t he pl ai nt i ff has shown a wi l l i ngness and abi l i t y t o per f or m, and t o do al l t he t hi ngs t hat he i s r equi r ed t o do by t he cont r act, i ncl udi ng a r eadi ness t o pay such amount s as may be f ound by t he cour t t o be due and owi ng. C. J. S. Speci fi c Performance 112, at 965. I f a pl ai nt i f f can pr ove hi s wi l l i ngness and abi l i t y, gener al l y, t he r emedy of speci f i c per f or mance is available to him if he prevails. 71 AM. JUR.2d, Speci fi c Performance 68, at 98. The West er n Sect i on t hen quot ed f r om a Supr eme Cour t of Al abama opi ni on, Hudson v. Mor t on, 165 So. 227 ( Al a. 1936) : Cert ai nl y a t ender may be excused where i t i s pr event ed by t he act of t he par t y t o whom i t i s due.... Compl ai nant had i n hand f unds suf f i ci ent f or t he r edempt i on, and made ever y r easonabl e ef f or t t o make t he t ender and pr ocur e t he deed, but wi t hout avai l by r eason of [ def endant ' s] avoi dance of any meet i ng t hat t he previ ous agreement mi ght be effect uat ed. Huds on, 165 So. at 229. We r ecogni ze t hat t he f or egoi ng case was deci ded under Al abama l aw; however, we bel i eve t he Rul e enunci at ed i s a proper one and shoul d appl y under t he f act s of t hi s case. 6

7 We al so not e t hat Ms. Reagan r ef used t o honor Mr. Reagan' s request t o execut e a qui t -cl ai m deed because she t hought t he equi t y i n t he pr oper t y f ar exceeded t he $57, 000 f i xed by t he Trial Court. This is puzzling in light of her affidavit filed in t he or i gi nal di vor ce wher ei n she her sel f r epr esent ed t he equi t y t o be onl y $48, 500. Fi nal l y, we poi nt out t hat even i f we were t o accept her posi t i on we woul d be r equi r ed t o r emand t he case f or f or mal pr oof as t o t he det er mi nat i ve quest i on. I n l i ght of t he of f er of pr oof whi ch was subst ant i al l y t he same as r epr esent ed by counsel i n openi ng st at ement s, t he r esul t bel ow and her e woul d be t he same. Mr. Reagan rai ses an i ssue wherei n he asked t hat we decl are t he present appeal t o be fri vol ous, as wel l as t he pri or appeal whi ch Ms. Reagan di smi ssed. We decl i ne t o f i nd t he pr esent appeal f r i vol ous and ar e wi t hout aut hor i t y t o f i nd t he f or mer appeal such because we have l ost j ur i sdi ct i on of t hat case. For t he f or egoi ng r easons t he j udgment of t he Tr i al Cour t i s af f i r med and t he cause r emanded f or such f ur t her pr oceedi ngs, i f any, as may be necessar y and col l ect i on of cost s bel ow. Cost s of appeal ar e adj udged agai nst Mr. Reagan and hi s sur et y. 7

8 Houst on M. Goddar d, P. J. CONCUR: Charles D. Susano, Jr., J. William H. Inman, Sr.J. 8